You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Big Hand Privilege: being able to type with your thumbs on a tablet...in landscape orientation!
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
I usually lock it in portrait but I'm watching YouTube videos and I want them to take up the entire screen
re traditional vs. simplified: when even the japanese can use traditional characters for their kanji, the simplified characters thing is just embarrassing
@tachyon sorry to possibly bring up an old topic of dispute but
when people are using a certain phrase in language to mean two different things, when one of those meanings is unambiguously covered by another phrase, would you support encouraging people to use the first phrase to mean the meaning that's not covered by the second phrase?
Depending on other factors; I tend to prefer terms that have long-established, widespread use, and I dislike ones which appear to be derived from obvious errors or laziness of thought (hence my dislike for 'I could care less'). Neologisms are fine, but so seldom catch on that I don't see much point in advocating them; when it's a word that lots of people use, though, I think it's in with a chance. Etymological sense is a big mark in a word's favour, and a lack of etymological sense can be a big strike against it in conjunction with other factors.
In the case of 'billion', we have two definitions with a large scope for ambiguity between the two, since the only difference between the two definitions is in terms of magnitude - a substantial difference, but one that it's difficult to differentiate between in spoken English. The long billion is historically correct in English and, better yet, is consistent with the use in other European languages which are related to English. Those are huge points in its favour, IMO. It also rather neatly mirrors our terms for numbers x where 1,000,000 ≥ x ≥ 1,000: ten thousands are ten thousand, a hundred thousands are one hundred thousand, a thousand thousands are a million. Ten millions are a million, a hundred millions are one hundred million, a thousand millions are one thousand million, a million millions are a billion.
But of course, if I'm honest, I probably wouldn't care about this so much if I weren't already accustomed to the long scale. And, I'm aware that this probably sounds like obnoxious pedantry, but like I say, I think there is actually a lot of ambiguity in having the two terms, which could be avoided if we picked one. And if we did, I'd much rather it be the long billion, since 'one thousand million' is perfectly clear and unambiguous.
I'm accustomed to the 'every second' sense, and I don't think I've seen 'every other' used to mean 'all others' except in unambiguous contexts (i.e. informally and with reference only to unordered sets).
I don't think I've ever heard 'all of them are not x'. It sounds very stilted, and supremely ambiguous.
What you really want is judicious use of bracketing - (all of them) are (not x) vs (all of them) are not (x) - but obviously that's not possible in spoken English.
But 'not all of them are x' and 'none of them are x' are both perfectly clear and much more natural, so I don't think there's an issue there.
actually, bracketing is relatively easy in spoken english. just use timing judiciously.
it's written english where it's difficult to do. where you get long long clauses with subject nouns twenty words separated from their verbs, but where the conventions of written english prevent bracketing by commas or pause-dashes.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
The line of random-looking bars at the bottom of the sign is actually a POSTNET barcode of the type used when processing mail...and apparently, it actually corresponds to the proper address for that building.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
You know what I never understood?
How Tommy Pickles managed to conceal a toy screwdriver in his diaper
At the very least, wouldn't that be supremely uncomfortable??
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
if it helps, i first wondered about this when i was like 6
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Also, weird coincidences: I'm exactly a day older than Tommy Pickles
Which is to say, I was born 10 August 1990
And the Rugrats episode "Tommy's First Birthday" originally aired on 11 August 1991
Actually, most of the characters in Lizzie McGuire were decent or amusing at worst. It wasn't great art, but it was at least reasonably funny.
Matt was cutely mischievous and Lannie never said anything but people still understood him. I hardly remember anything about the main characters, except that Gordo's parents were psychologists or something and Kate was the "mean girl" with a disturbing fixation on ruining Lizzie's day, every day.
Comments
traditional chinese characters > simplified chinese characters
by that i mean sh sh sh th zh th sh th zh zh th zh th sh zh th th sh
[/flamebait]
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Depending on other factors; I tend to prefer terms that have long-established, widespread use, and I dislike ones which appear to be derived from obvious errors or laziness of thought (hence my dislike for 'I could care less'). Neologisms are fine, but so seldom catch on that I don't see much point in advocating them; when it's a word that lots of people use, though, I think it's in with a chance. Etymological sense is a big mark in a word's favour, and a lack of etymological sense can be a big strike against it in conjunction with other factors.
In the case of 'billion', we have two definitions with a large scope for ambiguity between the two, since the only difference between the two definitions is in terms of magnitude - a substantial difference, but one that it's difficult to differentiate between in spoken English. The long billion is historically correct in English and, better yet, is consistent with the use in other European languages which are related to English. Those are huge points in its favour, IMO. It also rather neatly mirrors our terms for numbers x where 1,000,000 ≥ x ≥ 1,000: ten thousands are ten thousand, a hundred thousands are one hundred thousand, a thousand thousands are a million. Ten millions are a million, a hundred millions are one hundred million, a thousand millions are one thousand million, a million millions are a billion.
But of course, if I'm honest, I probably wouldn't care about this so much if I weren't already accustomed to the long scale. And, I'm aware that this probably sounds like obnoxious pedantry, but like I say, I think there is actually a lot of ambiguity in having the two terms, which could be avoided if we picked one. And if we did, I'd much rather it be the long billion, since 'one thousand million' is perfectly clear and unambiguous.
this is hilarious
I think it was "every other", as I mentioned in this thread: http://itjustbugsme.com/forums/discussion/12497/every-other-used-to-mean-all-others/p1 ; I prefer to see it used to mean "every second" rather than "all others", though then again, we already have the even less ambiguous "every second".
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
I'm accustomed to the 'every second' sense, and I don't think I've seen 'every other' used to mean 'all others' except in unambiguous contexts (i.e. informally and with reference only to unordered sets).
What you really want is judicious use of bracketing - (all of them) are (not x) vs (all of them) are not (x) - but obviously that's not possible in spoken English.
But 'not all of them are x' and 'none of them are x' are both perfectly clear and much more natural, so I don't think there's an issue there.
∀x: ¬Yx
it's written english where it's difficult to do. where you get long long clauses with subject nouns twenty words separated from their verbs, but where the conventions of written english prevent bracketing by commas or pause-dashes.
Timing and tone of voice.
Still, I'd avoid that phrase. English has enough ambiguities without inventing new ones.
What about it makes you smile?
I don't think it bears thinking about!
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead